Homeland IN-security?

Josey1

Politics: Bush pushes Senate to pass Homeland Security bill

Copyright c 2002 AP Online

Search the archive for: homeland security

The Associated Press


WASHINGTON (July 27, 2002 11:27 a.m. EDT) - President Bush challenged the Democratic-controlled Senate on Saturday to follow the GOP-led House and pass homeland security, defense and economic legislation before its summer recess.

"By taking action on these issues, the Senate can advance our national priorities of defending freedom, protecting our homeland and strengthening our economy," the president said in his weekly radio address.

"The Senate now has one week left to make progress for the American people, and I urge them to seize the opportunity," he said.

The speech, taped after the House's last-minute flurry of activity before its six-week vacation, was broadcast while Bush played an early morning round of golf at Andrews Air Force Base.

At the first tee, Bush celebrated House passage early Saturday of a bill to give him broad authority to negotiate trade agreements. The 215-212 vote followed Bush's hastily arranged trip to the Capitol on Friday afternoon to appeal anew to majority Republicans to stand together on the bill.

"We're celebrating a victory in the House, playing golf with House members who helped convince their fellow members that trade is good for the economy and trade is good for the working people," Bush said Saturday.

Accompanying him were GOP Reps. Michael Oxley of Ohio, Dan Burton of Indiana and Tom DeLay of Texas.

On trade, Bush said on the radio that he wants the legislation on his desk next week "so I can immediately take action that will create jobs and strengthen the economy."

The Senate could take up the bill next week.

Also on Bush's mind was his proposal to create a Homeland Security Department, which the House approved Friday by 295-132. The bill mirrors most of the president's blueprint for merging 22 existing agencies into a new Cabinet department with 170,000 employees and a $38 billion budget.

Bush and Senate Democrats are fighting over the president's insistence on broad powers over agency personnel. Bush says these are vital in confronting an agile, shadowy terrorist threat; Democrats say it amounts to a Republican assault on collective-bargaining rights and civil service protections.

"This department will coordinate our nation's response to grave national threats, to anticipate our enemies, analyze our vulnerabilities and act forcefully to address them," Bush said in his address. "The Senate must give the Department of Homeland Security all the authority and flexibility it needs to protect the American people."

Bush also pressed for approval of a defense spending bill.

"Our military needs to plan for a long war on terror and prepare for all of the missions that lie ahead," he said.

Before the full Senate is a $355.4 billion defense measure, $35 billion higher than this year's level. It is $11.4 billion below Bush's.

Bush said he looked forward to signing a business overhaul bill - including a sweeping overhaul of accounting practices and tough new penalties on corporate fraud - next week.

"It should be clear to every shareholder, investor and employee in America that this administration will investigate, arrest and prosecute corporate executives who break the law," he said. The legislation "will help reassure Americans that our economic system is sound and fair."

He appealed to the Senate to act swiftly on pension legislation intended to tighten protection on workers' retirement plans.

"America's retirement security is too important to fall victim to political game-playing, and the Senate must act now," Bush said.

Senate Democrats, pressured by House Republicans to pass the pension changes the House approved nearly four months ago, said Friday they will take up a bill in early September.

Democrats have yet to agree about what changes they want to pursue.

http://www.nandotimes.com/politics/story/480234p-3834494c.html


"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878

Josey1

Northcom Raises Legal,
Constitutional Questions
by Carl Osgood
Since Sept. 11, there has been increasing pressure from both within and without the Bush Administration to expand the role of the U.S. military in "homeland defense." To this ostensible end, Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld announced, on April 17, the formation of a new unified military command, the U.S. Northern Command, to-as Rumsfeld put it-"help the [Defense] Department better deal with natural disasters, attacks on U.S. soil, or other civil difficulties. It will provide for a more coordinated support to civil authorities such as the FBI, FEMA [Federal Emergency Management Agency], and state and local governments."

Rumsfeld described the new command as "assigned to defend the American people where they live and work, and it will be functioning in a supporting role to civil authorities as occasions arise." Northern Command's geographic area of responsibility will include Mexico and Canada, as well as the United States and parts of the Caribbean, including Cuba.

EIR Founding Editor Lyndon LaRouche warned (EIR, May 17, 2002) that in the current context of strategic policymaking, the creation of Northern Command "is clearly a proposal to 'cross the Rubicon,' " a reference to Julius Caesar's 49 BC march into Rome that ultimately led to the establishment of the Roman Empire under Augustus Caesar in 31 BC. The danger, today, stems from the possibility that, under this new arrangement, the Pentagon might become a tool of Attorney General John Ashcroft. LaRouche pointed to the doctrine of law encompassed by the 1878 Posse Comitatus Act which "may be properly viewed as the U.S. government's recognition of the danger of allowing the circumstances under which corrupt elements of the Federal government might act to establish a military dictatorship in the U.S.A."

LaRouche is not alone in his concerns. Military experts and state legislators consulted by EIR have raised numerous questions as to the Constitutionality and legality of the Northern Command as it is being constituted. One expert argues that, if the intent of the Northern Command is to facilitate the use of Federal troops in emergency situations, the required legal authorities already exist under Title 10 and Title 32 of the U.S. Code. If, however, the intent is to deploy Federal troops to assist other Federal departments, such as Treasury or Justice, in the enforcement of civil law, then Constitutional and legal problems arise.

Erosion of Posse Comitatus
The deployment of Federal troops for civil law enforcement purposes is strictly prohibited by the Posse Comitatus Law, formally known as Title 18, section 1385 of the U.S. Code. It simply reads, "Whoever, except in cases and under circumstances expressly authorized by the Constitution or Act of Congress, willfully uses any part of the Army [later amended to include the Air Force, then extended to the Navy and Marines by Defense Department regulation] as a posse comitatus or otherwise to execute the laws shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than two years, or both." The act has specific application to regular military forces functioning under Title 10, and Title 10 provides exceptions, such as for disaster recovery assistance. Title 10 also defines circumstances under which the regular military forces can provide assistance to law enforcement, such as the provision of equipment and training.

The National Guard, when functioning under state status, is governed by Title 32, and is not subject to the Posse Comitatus Act. The National Guard only comes under Posse Comitatus when it is Federalized under Title 10. The Coast Guard is normally under the Department of Transportation, and itself has significant law enforcement authorities and responsibilities, and is therefore also not subject to Posse Comitatus.

The law has its genesis in the aftermath of the contested Presidential election of 1876, when Federal troops on duty in the South were used to guard polling places. No prosecutions have ever taken place under the law, and exceptions have been made to it during its history, such as the deployment of troops to end rioting in Chicago in 1919 and against the "Bonus marchers" in Washington, D.C. in 1932. In the 1970s, Federal courts drew the distinction between active participation of the military in law enforcement activities, and passive assistance, such as the lending of equipment, in a series of cases that arose in the aftermath of the 1973 standoff at Wounded Knee, South Dakota between Federal law enforcement authorities and the American Indian Movement.

Real erosion of the posse comitatus principle came with the deployment of the military in drug interdiction in the early 1980s. Later on, border duty and investigative support were added. Matthew Carlton Hammond, writing in the Summer 1997 issue of the Washington University Law Quarterly, argues that such exceptions "blur the traditional line between civilian law enforcement and the role of the military." He notes that drug interdiction and border control have been properly the responsibility of civilian agencies and that investigative support is reminiscent of the military surveillance conducted in the 1960s and condemned by the Congress and the Supreme Court "as an improper use of the military."

Hammond also makes the point that law enforcement officers are trained to de-escalate a situation and only use deadly force as a last resort. Soldiers, on the other hand, are trained when to use or not to use deadly force, and escalation is the rule. Once someone has been identified as the enemy, soldiers have no need to be concerned about individual rights or any aggressive acts by that person before using deadly force. He argues that the use of the military in civil situations should only be to address emergencies, of short-term duration, when state and local agencies need help to protect property and save lives. In fact, Hammond proposes a rewrite of the Posse Comitatus Act specifically to define such use of the military.

Senator Warner's Questions
However, further erosion of the law has been suggested since Sept. 11. On Oct. 4, 2001, during a hearing of the Senate Armed Services Committee, Sen. John Warner (R-Va.) asked Deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, if he thought that Posse Comitatus should be reviewed in light of the Sept. 11 attacks and the war on terrorism. "It seems to me," he said, "we have to bring together every asset of the United States of America, irrespective of where it comes, military, civilian and the like." Wolfowitz replied, "I agree strongly," adding that the Pentagon "can do more than anyone else in the country, because of the special capabilities we have; because of the unique organizational capabilities of the department."

In a subsequent letter to Defense Secretary Rumsfeld, Warner wrote, "Limited use of the military beyond that permitted by existing law might strengthen the nation's ability both to protect against and to respond to events of the sort which we have recently undergone."

Army Secretary Thomas White told reporters at the Pentagon on Oct. 26 that, with respect to Posse Comitatus, "we are looking at the details of the law to see if revisions are appropriate in the way it's executed or the exceptions that can be taken." Rumsfeld, however, has since retracted that position. He told the Senate Appropriations Committee on May 7, "We're not looking for any long-term or short-term change with respect to Posse Comitatus."

Even before Sept. 11, state governors were already seeing themselves as on the front line of defense against terrorist acts within the United States, based on the simple fact that in any event, the first agencies on the scene will be the local emergency services, followed by state emergency management officials, if required. Governors see the state-level National Guard as an important asset for assisting in search and rescue efforts, disaster recovery, and the maintenance of order, and are loath to give that up.

Indeed, Gen. Richard Alexander, the director of the National Guard Association, emphasized this point in a prepared statement to the Senate Appropriations Committee on April 11. He told the committee, "Use of the National Guard as a primary fusion agent in executing a balanced, integrated national domestic security strategy preserves the Constitutional role of the sovereign states and assures that governors and other state and local civil authorities remain responsible and accountable for the public safety and security of their state, territory, and local jurisdictions."

Alexander warned, "Any attempt to repeal or substantially amend the Posse Comitatus Act would be met by a firestorm of resistance from the nation's governors and state and local civil authorities." He also warned that use of Title 10 forces or the National Guard in a Title 10 status for homeland security missions would not only negatively affect the readiness of the regular Army, but would also "place Federal military personnel on a collision course with the proscriptions of the Posse Comitatus Act-an act, by the way, that is as relevant and compelling today as it was when it was enacted."

This concern about the National Guard was echoed on May 21 by Sen. Christopher Bond (R-Mo.), during a hearing of the Senate Defense Appropriations Subcommittee. He told Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Richard Myers, "It concerns me very much that the establishment of the Northern Command does not appear to have involved sufficient input from senior National Guard leaders." Myers punted in response, telling Bond that "there will probably be a fairly heavy reliance on some National Guard capabilities," but that, since the Northern Command will not stand up until Oct. 1, it is still in the planning and implementation phase.

Congress Must Hold Hearings
While Rumsfeld is denying any desire to change the laws governing use of the military inside the United States, the terms of reference for the establishment of the Northern Command contain elements that appear to violate provisions of the Constitution and Federal law. The terms of reference, promulgated as a Joint Chiefs of Staff memo on March 7, asks for, among other things, recommendations regarding mechanisms for coordination between Northcom and local, state, and Federal agencies. The memo also asks for recommendations for "appropriate roles for USNORTHCOM, the Services, the National Guard and Reserve Components, Defense Agencies, and other combatant commands with assigned forces in the USNORTHCOM AOR [area of responsibility] with respect to anti-terrorism and force protection responsibilities."

One expert told EIR that, because the term "terrorism" is undefined, this means, the role of Northcom in "anti-terrorism" is also undefined, and therefore unlimited in a practical sense. The memo also specifies that civil support functions, such as the National Guard's Weapons of Mass Destruction-Civil Support Teams are to be brought under Northcom, but since legislation already provides for these functions, why put them under Northcom?

More disturbing is the plan for the fusing of intelligence information between the Defense Department and law enforcement, as well as the ability to coordinate operations with non-Pentagon agencies. Both appear to be not only inappropriate, but illegal as well.

The degree to which Congress will look at this remains to be seen. The fiscal 2003 defense authorization bill passed by the House on May 9, requires the Secretary of Defense to submit a report by Sept. 1 on the implementation plan for the Northern Command. The report is to address the budget, the location of headquarters, the manning levels, the chain of command, the relationship of Northcom to the Office of Homeland Security, other Federal agencies, and the National Guard. Lastly, the report is to address "the legal implications of military forces in their Federal capacity operating on United States territory." It also is to address the status of U.S. consultations with Canada and Mexico regarding their role in the Northern Command.

Besides that, the Senate Armed Services Committee will hold a hearing on the nomination of Gen. Ralph Eberhardt, currently commander of NORAD, to command the Northern Command. Certainly, the Constitutional and legal implications of the Northern Command demand that Congress do much more than simply ask for a report. http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2002/2921usnorthcom.html


"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878

Josey1

Weekend soldiers working
on parish firing range


.
By Aaron Zachmeier
The Natchez Democrat

Published Sunday, July 28, 2002 11:48 PM CDT

FERRIDAY, La. - Before work began on the firing range currently under construction behind the Concordia Parish Correctional Facility, plans for the project were modest.
But with free National Guard labor and enthusiastic engineers, the development has evolved into something more that a simple rifle range.

When the range is completed, it will include a 20-station pistol range; a 100-yard, three-station rifle range; a classroom for gun-safety instruction; and a 150,000-square-foot-plus, handicapped-accessible fishing pond stocked with bass, perch and catfish.

Sheriff Randy Maxwell said it was hard to resist expansion of the project with the readily available manpower.

"We're trying to make hay while the sun shines," Maxwell said.

Most of the construction on the range, which began earlier this month, is being done by National Guardsmen serving their two-week summer training duties.

The cost to local taxpayers, Maxwell said, is negligible.

"The only thing we're furnishing is the fuel and the meals."

The scale of the project, however, is enormous, with 20 armed men operating four bulldozers and three earth-scrapers in 10-hour shifts.

The men have moved 30,000 yards of dirt just for the pond, and the 20-foot-tall backstop, when finished, will be 80-feet wide at the bottom. In total, 500 to 600 man hours will go into the job.

But Sgt. Huey Posey, who commands 20 men from a Monroe-based battalion, said the firing range is a relatively small undertaking.

"This is minimal," Posey said. "We're used to 2,000 to 3,000 man hours."

Posey, who has taken part in building projects all over the world, expressed confidence in his men's ability to finish the National Guard's share of the work in the allotted 15 days.

"Before we leave next Friday, we will have it completed."

After the National Guard troops return to their lives, inmate laborers will take over, putting on the finishing touches, such as sodding the backstop and area around the pond and building the classroom.

Weather permitting, Concordians will have a place to shoot and learn about gun safety by next spring.

"This is something we've been wanting to do for a long time," Maxwell said. "We've never had any place to shoot."

http://www.natchezdemocrat.com/NF/omf/nddaily/news_story.html?[rkey=0014909+ssiuname=WebOSTTN+ssipwd=TTN67E2F639 c 2002 Natchez Newspapers Inc. All rights reserved.





"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878

Josey1

True Tales of the Citizen Corps: A New Breed of Secret Agent
07/24/2002

If I told you my real name, I'd have to kill you. And believe me, as an elite member of Citizen Corps, I have the authority to do just that. Besides, you probably already know my code name: "Cable Guy." I may seem like an ordinary employee of your local cable company, but I'm really a secret agent.

I know, I know. You seem to be under the impression that secret agents are supposed to run around in tuxedos, impersonating foreign dignitaries at debutante balls, or sabotaging the doomsday devices of evil geniuses bent on destroying the world. If that's what you think it's all about, then you've been watching too many James Bond movies. This is reality, and I'm just a normal U.S. citizen trying to do his patriotic duty in the fight against terrorism.

To show you just how important my job is, let me share with you some of the details of my latest mission. It's a harrowing tale, but one that must be told so that you realize just how important we agents are to the security of this nation.

It all started when I got the call one Monday afternoon. Mrs. Benson, a 76-year-old widow living at 2304 Walker Street, wanted cable TV in her new home. At first, I thought nothing of it. It seemed like a routine installation. But my suspicions were raised the moment I laid eyes on that woman.

I arrived precisely when I told Mrs. Benson I would be there, sometime between one and five o'clock. When my van pulled up to the curb outside her modest, one level, suburban home, she was outside working in her garden. Strange, I thought, glancing up at the sky. It's cloudy today, and the forecast calls for rain. Why would she be out here watering her flowers? That certainly seems suspicious...

"Hello!" Mrs. Benson called out as soon as she saw me. "I was beginning to wonder if you were going to show up at all today." She was smiling, but that didn't fool me. I could see right away that something was going on. There was something about her that made me feel uneasy.

"Looks like rain," I said, trying to stay in control of the conversation. "You're probably wasting water on those flowers."

Mrs. Benson smiled again and took off her dirty gardening gloves. "Well, I just transplanted these little guys from the backyard. They could use the extra moisture."

Hmmm... Transplanted from the backyard. Why? Was she making room for something else back there? I knew I had to find out what she was really up to.

"Come on in." She motioned to me, and I followed.

Inside her humble abode, she began to walk me around the house, explaining where she wanted the cable outlets. It turned out that she wanted three: one in the living room, one in the bedroom, and one in the kitchen. The kitchen? Who watches TV in the kitchen? My mind was racing.

During the tour, I was making mental notes. Mrs. Benson seemed to have gone out of her way to give the impression that she was normal. I saw pictures of her deceased husband, her kids, and her grandchildren. It all seemed a little too normal, if you know what I mean. She even had various crosses and Bible verses strategically placed throughout the house, as if trying to scream the message, "Hey! I'm not an Islamic fundamentalist! I'm just a normal, churchgoing grandma!" I wasn't buying it.

There were other things that led me to believe that Mrs. Benson was not what she appeared to be. When she noticed me taking an interest in her "craft table," she quickly explained, "Oh, excuse the mess. I make handmade Christmas ornaments in my spare time to sell at my antique shop."

A likely story. This was the middle of the summer. Why would anyone be concerned with Christmas ornaments at this time of year? It was obvious that she was hiding something. The best thing for me to do was to just play it cool.

After about an hour, I had her cable installed. I called out to let her know I had finished, but she didn't answer. I started to walk through the living room, toward the kitchen, and it was then that I caught sight of something in the hall closet. Carefully, I crept over to the door that had been left slightly ajar.

To my astonishment, the old lady's closet actually turned out to be a small arsenal. I counted three rifles, four shotguns, and no less than seven handguns. There were also several swords and knives tucked away in the corner, loosely covered with an old blanket. What was going on?! A tremendous fear swept over me. What kind of responsible grandmother keeps a cache of weapons in her hall closet?

Just then, I heard her voice behind me. "I see you found my late husband's antique military collection. He was a big history buff, and has something from just about every major conflict, from the American Revolution to Vietnam. It took him decades to collect it all, and I just haven't been able to part with it. You know, you look a little warm. Would you care for some fresh lemonade?"

I knew I had to act quickly. "Yes. Yes I would." I pretended to go along with her little scheme. She saw that I knew too much and thought she could poison me with her special "lemonade." Well, I was on to her.

The moment her back was turned, I made my move. From the Citizen Corps Spy Kit I kept in my toolbox, I ripped a Suspect Inhibiting Presoaked Chloroform Pad out of its foil pouch, reached around from behind, and held it firmly over her nose and mouth. In an instant, her unconscious body slumped against me, and I carried her to the couch in the living room.

Without hesitation, I whipped out my cell phone and put in a call to the local Citizen Corps Council, who then called the FBI field office for back-up. About 15 minutes later, I heard the wail of sirens, and three black vehicles screeched to a halt in front of the house.

I told the FBI agents everything that had transpired. They seemed especially interested in the weapons in the hall closet, and assured me that Mrs. Benson was exactly the kind of person they wanted under surveillance. Sure, people like her seem normal on the outside, but who knows what evil schemes they are hatching in secret?

As the agents prepared to leave with their terrorist suspect, one of them slapped me on the shoulder and handed me a small, gold star for me to put in my mission log book. "Good work, Cable Guy. If we had more vigilant citizens like you, it's a cinch this war on terror will be over before you know it." He was right.

I could see Mrs. Benson crying and pleading with the agents that she was innocent. Typical, I thought, shaking my head. I watched as the caravan of government cars disappeared around the bend, and then finished loading my tools into my van.

Before I had her arrested on suspicion of being a terrorist, my ex-wife had convinced me to quit smoking, but I always carried a couple of cigarettes in my shirt pocket to enjoy after a successful mission. I pulled one out, lit it, and inhaled deeply. I immediately felt calm once again.

Slipping into my van, I retrieved my USA Freedom Corps journal from under the driver's seat, and logged my latest contribution of volunteer service for my country. As I finished writing, I looked out across the valley upon the houses of citizens whose lives I helped save that afternoon. I started to wonder if people realized that the reason they were able to sleep at night was because of the work of agents like me.

But, of course, this wasn't about me. I realized that. It was about doing our part as citizens of this great nation, to give back to the country that has given us so much. Anything less is criminal-or at least it should be. I pondered the call-to-arms of President John F. Kennedy, who said, "Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country." More noble words have yet to be spoken.

I took a final drag on my cigarette, flicked the butt out the window, and adjusted my rearview mirror. My work here was done. As much as I wanted to continue to reflect on what it meant to be a patriot, it was time for me to go. The Johnson family up the road needed a cable modem installed for their home business of selling handmade greeting cards. Yeah, right. Greeting cards. We'll see about that.


The End?
http://www.evervigilant.net/arch72402.html



"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878

Josey1

Senate puts off vote on security
By Stephen Dinan
THE WASHINGTON TIMES


The Senate will not complete action on its bill to establish a Department of Homeland Security before leaving for the August recess, drawing a rebuke from Republicans who said that means a final compromise can't reach President Bush by September 11. Top Stories
Train derails; 97 hurt
Dow rallies again, gains 447 points
Amtrack passengers 'just held on'
Pyongyang seen ready for talks with U.S.
'Friendly fire' judge's memo assailed


The schedule now calls for senators to take up the bill, which the Governmental Affairs Committee approved 12-5 last week, at the end of the week, and make it pending business when senators return after Labor Day.
"There are a host of issues on the floor that have taken us a lot longer than we had hoped," said Ranit Schmelzer, spokeswoman for Majority Leader Tom Daschle, South Dakota Democrat.
The Senate has spent a week trying to pass a prescription-drug bill, and Mr. Daschle wants to approve the defense spending bill before the break.
Ms. Schmelzer also said the bill faces a filibuster if taken up now, and although she would not specify who would block the bill, two Democratic senators have urged a go-slow approach.
Sen. Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia has said he wants to ensure the bill doesn't alter the balance of power between the legislature and the executive branches, and Sen. Ernest F. Hollings of South Carolina says the president's plan would create a huge bureaucracy without solving critical intelligence issues.
But Republicans said the homeland security bill should be a "top priority."
"Every American deserves to feel safe within our borders," Senate Minority Leader Trent Lott, Mississippi Republican, said in a statement. "Unfortunately, the Senate Democratic leadership will not allow the Senate to complete action this week to organize and mobilize the nation's resources at every level to protect America from terrorist attack."
The bill would transfer 170,000 employees from all or parts of 22 existing agencies to the department, which would have a budget of $38 billion.
The House passed its version 295-132 at 10 p.m. Friday, just before members began their summer recess, and House Republicans criticized Senate Democrats yesterday for not following suit.
"We're disappointed that the Senate is taking longer to complete their work, but it is not surprising," said Richard Diamond, a spokesman for House Majority Leader Dick Armey, Texas Republican. "We will do what it takes to get the homeland bill done as soon as we can."
Still, the White House has been downplaying the importance of meeting the September 11 deadline.
A spokeswoman for Sen. Fred Thompson from Tennessee, the top Republican on the Government Affairs Committee, said yesterday that Mr. Thompson believes meeting the first anniversary isn't as important as getting the bill right.
"He really is not concerned about the artificial deadline of September 11," Michelle Semones said.
House Republicans said they had hoped to have each chamber's bill done by early August and hold informal meetings during the recess so a compromise would be ready to go when lawmakers return after Labor Day.
But if the Senate bill isn't final, outstanding differences, such as union protections and the structure of the existing White House homeland security director's position, can't be negotiated, House aides said.
Ms. Schmelzer said the Senate has to overcome more obstacles.
"The Republican leadership in the House was able to jam something through over the objections of many in their party, as well as Democrats - that's not how it works in the Senate," she said.
Minority Leader Richard A. Gephardt, Missouri Democrat, has been one of the strongest voices calling for final action before the deadline.
"I continue to believe that we should aim for a goal of September 11 in tribute to the families who lost people," he said even before Mr. Bush sent his proposal to Congress in June, and he has reiterated that goal in the weeks since.
Mr. Gephardt's press office didn't return a phone call for comment.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/national/20020730-13647898.htm


"If cowardly and dishonorable men sometimes shoot unarmed men with army pistols or guns, the evil must be prevented by the penitentiary and gallows, and not by a general deprivation of a constitutional privilege." - Arkansas Supreme Court, 1878